Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
CRITIQUE (PART B) REFERENCES
of When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?
Part 2, What the Clay Documents Really Show (Watchtower, November 1, 2011, pages 23 -28)
Version 1
This Critique of the article appearing in The Watchtower of November 1, 2011 is in two parts:
Part A discusses points raised by the article. Available at
http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_Part_A_of_Jerusalem_Destroyed_part_2.pdf
Part B (this document) provides supporting evidences and additional material.
Each major subject canvassed in this Critique commences with a new page. This allows the reader to quickly identify the subject matter, and if need be, provide those pages to a Watchtower apologist.
The October 1, 2011 and November 1, 2011 issues of The Watchtower magazine presented two parts of the Article: “When was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?”
My Critique of “Part One: Why It Matters?; What the Evidence Shows” is available at:
http://www.jwstudies.com/Critique_of_When_Was_Ancient_Jerusalem_Destroyed.pdf
I am enormously grateful to two very special people without whom this Critique could never have been written, let alone in the short time that was available. They are Ann O’Maly and Marjorie Alley. I simply cannot thank them enough.
I also wish to acknowledge my debt to Carl Olof Jonsson and my enormous respect for his knowledge and his many years of genuine friendship. Carl, I thank you.
This Critique is of course my responsibility, so please address any concerns to me. © Doug Mason, Melbourne. October 2011
http://www.jwstudies.com
PLEASE NOTE! This Critique is provided in two Parts:
Part A and
Part B (this document).
Contents The Story of Gedaliah ............................................................................................................................. 1
VAT 4956 ............................................................................................................................................... 6
Does Raymond Dougherty provide support for an extra king of Babylon? ............................................ 9
Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, David Brown ........................................................... 12
The compilers were astrologers (van der Spek) .................................................................................... 15
Lunar Threes on VAT 4956 (F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis) ........................................ 18
Lunar Threes ..................................................................................................................................... 18
Review of Lunar Threes on VAT 4956 by Professor Hermann Hunger, Vienna, Austria ................... 20
Table Year 568/7 BC, beginning April 22/23 ................................................................................... 20
Table: Year 588/7 BC, beginning April 3/4 ...................................................................................... 20
Table: Year 588/7 BC, beginning May 2/3 ....................................................................................... 21
Marjorie Alley’s Lunar Three time interval results from astronomy computer programs .................... 22
Settings for Jet Propulsion Laboratories (JPL) Horizons astronomy program ................................. 22
Table: Year 568/567 BC, beginning April 22/23 .............................................................................. 23
Table: Year 588/587 BC, beginning April 3/4 .................................................................................. 24
Table: Year 588/7 BC, beginning May 2/3 ....................................................................................... 25
Ann O’Maly’s Lunar Three time interval results from “Sky View Café” and “Cartes du Ciel” astronomy programs .............................................................................................................................. 27
Table: Year 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23 ........................................................................... 27
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli’s calendar) .......................................................... 28
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein’s tables) ................................. 29
Ann O’Maly’s Lunar Three time interval results from “Alcyone Ephemeris 2.8” (AE) astronomy program ................................................................................................................................................. 30
Table: 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23 ................................................................................... 30
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar) .......................................................... 31
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein's tables).................................. 32
Lunar threes comparison using “Sky Map Pro 11.04” .......................................................................... 33
Table: 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23 ................................................................................... 33
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar) .......................................................... 33
“Conjunctions of the Moon with Normal Stars” on VAT 4956 (F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis) ................................................................................................................................................... 34
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 35
Investigation by Ann O’Maly of the 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956 ..................................... 36
Do all 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE? ...................................... 36
Putting the claim to the test: .............................................................................................................. 36
Conclusion ........................................................................................................................................ 41
The Information Provided By The Planetary Observations .................................................................. 42
This page has been left blank to facilitate double-sided printing
1
THE STORY OF GEDALIAH1
1 The Complete Story of Tishrei, pages 73-77, by Nissan Mindel, (Merkos L’inyonei Chinuch, 1994)
2
3
4
5
6
VAT 4956 Nebukadnezar II year 37
Transcription, translation, and commentary: P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner, Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezar II. (-567/66)2
ASTRONOMICAL DIARIES AND RELATED TEXTS FROM BABYLONIA BY THE LATE ABRAHAM J. SACHS, COMPLETED AND EDITED BY HERMANN HUNGER
Volume I Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C.
VERLAG DER ÖSTERREICHISCHEN AKADEMIE DER WISSENSCHAFTEN
WIEN 1988
VAT 4956 (No. -567) Nebukadnezar II year 37. I II III [ ] X XI XII
Copy E. F. Weidner, AfO 16 Tf. XVII
Transcription, translation, and commentary: P.V. Neugebauer and E. F. Weidner, Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezar II. (-567/66)
Obv'
1: Year 37 of Nebukadnezar, king of Babylon. Month I (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind the Bull of Heaven; [sunset to moonset:] .... [ .... ]
2: Saturn was in front of the Swallow. The 2nd, in the morning, a rainbow stretched in the west. Night of the 3rd, the moon was 2 cubits in front of [ .... ]
3: it rained? Night of the 9th (error for 8th ), beginning of the night, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of Virginis. The 9th, the sun in the west [was surrounded] by a halo
3: [ .... The 11th ]
4: or 12th, Jupiter's acronychal rising. On the 14th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 4o. The 15th, overcast. The 16th, Venus [ .... ]
5: The 20th, in the morning, the sun was surrounded by a halo. Around noon, .... rain PISAN. A rainbow stretched in the east. [ .... ]
6: From the 8th of month XII2 to the 28th, the river level rose 3 cubits and 8 fingers, b cubits [ were missing] to the high flood [ .... ]
7: were killed on order of the king. That month, a fox entered the city. Coughing and a little risitu-disease [....]
8: Month II (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible while the sun stood there, 4 cubits below Geminorum; it was thick; there was earth shine [ .... ]
9: Saturn was in front of the Swallow; Mercury, which had set, was not visible. Night of the 1st, gusty storm from east and south. The 1st, all day [ .... ]
10: stood [ ... in front ] of Venus to the west. The 2nd, the north wind blew. The 3rd, Mars entered Praesepe.
2 Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts from Babylonia, Volume 1, Diaries from 652 B.C. to 262 B.C., by the late Abraham J. Sachs, completed and edited by Hermann Hunger, Verlag der Österreichischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Wien 1988
VAT 4596
7
The 5th, it went out of it. The 10th, Mercury [rose] in the west behind the [Little Twins .... ] 11: The 15th, ZI IR. The 18th, Venus was balanced 1 cubit 4 fingers below Leonis. The 26th, (moonrise to sunrise) 23o; I did not observe the moon. The 27th, 20+x [ .... ]
12: Month III (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Cancer; it was thick; sunset to moonset: 20o; the north wind blew. At that time, Mars and Mercury were 4 cubits in front of [Leonis ...]
13: Mercury passed below Mars to the East? ; Jupiter was above Scorpii; Venus was in the west opposite Leonis [ .... ]
14: 1? cubit. Night of the 5th, beginning of the night, the moon passed towards the east 1 cubit <above/below> the bright star of the end of the Lion's foot. Night of the 6th, beginning of the night, [ .... ]
15: it was low. Night of the 8th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2½ cubits below Librae. Night of the 9th, first part of the night, the moon [stood] 1 cubit in front of [ .... ]
16: passed towards the east. The 9th, solstice. Night of the 10th, first part of the night, the moon was balanced 3½ cubits above Scorpii. The 12th, Mars was b cubits above [ Leonis ...]
17: [ .... ] The 15th, one god was seen with the other; sunrise to moonset: 7o30'. A lunar eclipse which was omitted [.... ]
18: [ .... the moon was be]low the bright star at the end of the [ Lion's ] foot [ .... ]
19: [ .... ] .... [ .... ]
'Rev.
1': [ .... ] .... first part of the night .... the moon was ]
2': 1 cubit [above/below] the middle star of the elbow of Sagittarius .... [ .... ]
3': When 5o of daytime had passed, the sun was surrounded by a halo. The 19th, Venus was 2½ cubits below? Capricorni. Night of the [ .... ]
4': That month, the equivalent (of 1 shekel of silver was): barley, 1 kur 2 sut; dates, 1 kur 1 pan 4 sut; mustard, 1 kur .... [ .... ]
5': Month XI (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month), the moon became visible in the Swallow; sunset to moonset: 14o30'; the north wind blew. At that time Jupiter was 1 cubit behind the elbow of Sagittarius [ ... ]
6': The 4th, the river level rose. The 4th, Venus was balanced ½ cubit below (sic) Capricorn. Night of the 6th, first part of the night, the moon was surrounded by a halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ]
7': the moon was surrounded by a halo; Leo and Cancer were inside the halo; Leonis was balanced 1 cubit below the moon. Last part of the night, 3o of night remaining, [ .... ]
8': sunrise to moonset: 17o; I did not watch. The sun was surrounded by a halo. From the 4th to the 15th, the river level rose 1½ cubits. On the 16th, it receded. Night of the 18th (and) the 18th, rain PISAN DIB [ .... ]
9': when the [ .... ] of Bel was cut off from its place, two boats .... went away?. The 2nd, overcast. Night of the 23rd, [ .... Mars?]
10': was balanced above (sic) the small star which stands 3½ cubits behind Capricorn. Night of the 29th, red glow flared up in the west, 2 double-[hours .... ]
11': barley, 1 kur?; dates: 1 kur 1 pan 4 sut; mustard, 1 kur 1 pan; sesame, 4 sut; cress, [ .... ]
VAT 4596
8
12': Month XII (the 1st of which followed the 30th of the preceding month), the moon became visible behind Aries while the sun stood there; sunset to moonset: 25o, measured; earth shine; the north wind blew. At that time, Jupiter [ .... Mercury and Saturn, which had set]
13': were not visible. The 1st, the river level rose. Night of the 2nd, the moon was balanced 4 cubits below Tauri. Night of the 3rd, beginning of the night, 2½ cubits [ .... ]
14': From the 1st to the 5th, the river level rose 8 fingers; on the 6th it receded. Night of the 7th, the moon was surrounded by a halo. Praesepe and Leonis [stood] in [it .... ]
15': the halo surrounded Cancer and Leo, it was split towards the south. Inside the halo, the moon stood 1 cubit in front of < Leonis >, the noon being 1 cubit high. Night of the 10th, first [part of the night .... ]
16': Night of the 11th, overcast. The 11th, rain DUL. Night of the 12th, a little rain, .... The 12th, one god was seen with the other, sunrise to moonset: 1o30'; .... [ .... ] Mercury]
17': was in front of the "band" of the Swallow, ½ cubit below Venus, Mercury having passed 8 fingers to the east; when it became visible it was bright and (already) high. 1 ? [.... Saturn]
18': was balanced 6 fingers above Mercury and 3 fingers below Venus, and Mars was balanced b cubits below the bright star of < .... > towards [ ... ]
19': ...., ...., The 21st, overcast; the river level rose. Around the 20th, Venus and Mercury entered the "band" of the Swallow. From [ .... Jupiter, ]
20': which had passed to the east. became stationary. At the end of the month it went back to the west. Around the 26th, Mercury and Venus [came out] from the "band" of Anunitu [ .... ]
21': the river level receded 8 fingers. That month, on the 26th, a wolf entered Borsippa and killed two dogs; it did not go out, it was killed [ .... ]
Lower edge
1: Year 38 of Nebukadnezar, month I, the 1st (of which followed the 30th of the preceding month): dense clouds so that [ I did not see the moon .... ]
2: Year 37 [ .... ]
Left edge
1: [ Year 37 of Nebukad]nezar
9
DOES RAYMOND DOUGHERTY PROVIDE SUPPORT FOR AN EXTRA KING OF BABYLON?
WT, Nov 1, 2011
Dougherty, page 1
Dougherty, page 7
Does Raymond Dougherty provide support for an extra king of Babylon?
10
Dougherty, page 10
Dougherty, page 45
Dougherty, page 73
Does Raymond Dougherty provide support for an extra king of Babylon?
11
When writing of any confusion in a transition from one king to the next, Dougherty clearly states that it resulted from an overlap.
Dougherty, pages 73-74
Dougherty, page 78
Dougherty, page 79
Dougherty, page 146
[Greek text from Berossus here]
12
MESOPOTAMIAN PLANETARY ASTRONOMY-ASTROLOGY, DAVID BROWN
Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, David Brown
13
Mesopotamian Planetary Astronomy-Astrology, David Brown
14
15
THE COMPILERS WERE ASTROLOGERS (VAN DER SPEK)
The following citations from van der Spek put the quotation into context.
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
The compilers were astrologers (van der Spek)
16
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
The following provides the immediate context of the citation in The Watchtower.
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
The compilers were astrologers (van der Spek)
17
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
Bibliotheca Orientalis, R. J. van der Spek
18
LUNAR THREES ON VAT 4956 (F. RICHARD STEPHENSON AND DAVID M. WILLIS)3
[The following is from the Reference article cited at Endnote 18a on page 28 of the November 1, 2011 article. The author of the “Watchtower” article was fully aware of the contents of the Study by Stephenson and Willis and the conclusions, yet decided to keep them from the reader.]
Tablet [VAT 4956] twice gives the date as the 37th year of Nebuchadrezzar – both at the beginning of the obverse and at the end of the reverse. ... The equivalent Julian date of 568-567 BC, as identified by Neugebauer and Weidner, and Sachs and Hunger, seems well established. ...
Observations involving the moon are especially valuable for dating the Babylonian astronomical diaries since the moon moves so rapidly through the sky – on average 13 deg daily. The lunar observations on the tablet are of two main types:
“lunar threes” (three time-intervals recorded near the beginning, middle and end of each month); and
conjunctions of the moon with “Normal Stars”. ...
Lunar Threes During each lunar month the following three time-intervals were systematically recorded:
(i) sunset to moonset on the first of the month ...
(ii) sunrise to moonset around the middle of the month ...
(iii) moonrise to sunrise near the end of the month. ...
Seven “lunar threes” are preserved intact on the tablet. Here we shall give two examples.
(i) “Month III, (the 1st of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month)... sunset to moonset: 20° ...”
From the tables of Parker and Dubberstein, lunar month III began on June 21 in 568 BC. ... We compute that the interval between sunset and moonset at Babylon was actually 22.7°. However, on the previous and following evenings the respective intervals were 6.4° and 37.0°.
Hence the date according to Parker and Dubberstein is quite acceptable.
(ii) “Month XII, (the first of which was identical with) the 30th (of the preceding month).., sunset ... to moonset: 25°, measured”. ...
On this evening, the computed interval between sunset and moonset was actually 25.7° – almost identical to the measured value. On the previous and following evenings the appropriate intervals were 10.0 and 41.8°.
Hence once again the tabular date is confirmed.
3 From pages 421 – 428 of Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis, editors: John M. Steele, Annette Imhausen, Ugarit-Verlag, Münster, 2002. (The Watchtower November 1, 2011, page 28: Reference 18a) (Emphases supplied)
Lunar Threes on VAT 4956, Stephenson and Willis (Watchtower Ref. 18a)
19
Our comparisons between the various recorded time intervals and their computed equivalents are summarised in Table 1. ...
Month Day Julian Date Interval Measured [VAT 4956]
Computed Difference
I 14 568 May 5 SR-MS 4 3.5 0.5
II 26 568 Jun 17 MR-SR 23 23.2 0.2
III 1 568 Jun 20 SS-MS 20 22.7 2.7
XI 1 567 Feb 12 SS-MS 14.5 17.0 2.5
XII 1 567 Mar 14 SS-MS 25 25.7 0.7
XII 12 567 Mar 26 SR-MS 1.5 0.7 0.8
Table 1. Analysis of “lunar threes”;; comparison between measured and computed values.
We conclude that the various lunar threes on the text are quite in keeping with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. In addition, reference to Table 1 reveals that even at this early date, timing errors were typically of the order of 1° - no mean achievement.
20
REVIEW OF LUNAR THREES ON VAT 4956 BY PROFESSOR HERMANN HUNGER, VIENNA, AUSTRIA4
In Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East (J. M. Steele and A. Imhausen [eds.], Münster 2002), pp. 423-428, F. R. Stephenson and D. M. Willis have evaluated the lunar data in VAT 4956 and come to the conclusion that the date 568/7 BC can be “confidently affirmed”.
Stephenson and Willis used the “Lunar Three” to check the date. These are the following time intervals: sunset to moonset (SS-MS) on the first evening of the month; sunrise to moonset (SR-MS) on the first morning on which the almost full moon set after sunrise; and moonrise to sunrise (MR-SR) on the last morning on which the moon was visible before conjunction. I repeat the table from p. 424 of their article:
Table Year 568/7 BC, beginning April 22/23
Month Day Julian Date Interval Text Computed Difference
I 14 568 May 5 SR-MS 4 3.5 0.5
II 26 568 Jun 17 MR-SR 23 23.2 0.2
III 1 568 Jun 20 SS-MS 20 22.7 2.7
XI 1 567 Feb 12 SS-MS 14.5 17.0 2.5
XII 1 567 Mar 14 SS-MS 25 25.7 0.7
XII 12 567 Mar 26 SR-MS 1.5 0.7 0.8
As Stephenson and Willis say, each interval increases by about 12° per day, so the correct day can usually be identified by comparing text with computation. I have repeated their computations for 568/7 BC, and I agree with their results. In the following, I conduct the same computations for the year 588/7 BC, first for the dates given by Parker & Dubberstein, followed by those dates claimed by F., which are shifted by about one month.
Table: Year 588/7 BC, beginning April 3/45
Month Day Julian Date Interval Text Computed Difference
I 14 588 Apr 17/18! SR-MS 4 6 2
II 26 588 May 28/29 MR-SR 23 17.3 5.7
III 1 588 Jun 1/2 SS-MS 20 13.8 6.2
III 15 588 Jun 15/16 SR-MS 7.5 5.8 1.7
XI 1 587 Jan 24/25 SS-MS 14.5 16.5 2
XII 1 587 Feb 23/24 SS-MS 25 27.8 2.8
XII 12 587 Mar 7/8! SR-MS 1.5 1.8 0.3
4 Review of Assyrian, Babylonian, and Egyptian Chronology, Volume II of Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology Compared with the Chronology of the Bible. Furuli, Rolf J., Oslo, Awatu Publishers, 2nd ed., 2008. 376 pp., (From http://goto.glocalnet.net/kf4/reviewHunger.htm ) (Emphases supplied) 5 Dates as per Parker and Dubberstein.
Review of Lunar Threes on VAT 4956 by Professor Hermann Hunger, Vienna, Austria
21
Table: Year 588/7 BC, beginning May 2/36
Month Day Julian Date Interval Text Computed Difference
I 14 588 May 16/17! SR-MS 4 1 3
II 26 588 Jun 27/28! MR-SR 23 18.3 4.7
III 1 588 Jul 1/2! SS-MS 20 17.8 2.2
III 15 588 Jul 15/16! SR-MS 7.5 15.3 7.8
XI 1 587 Feb 22/23 SS-MS 14.5 9.8 4.7
XII 1 587 Mar 24/25 SS-MS 25 21.5 3.5
XII 12 587 Apr 6/7! SR-MS 1.5 4.8 3.3
The dates with an exclamation mark disagree with the calendar, in the sense that the measurements of the intervals could not have been taken on the date given on the tablet if the tablet were referring to year 588/7. The differences between text and computation are in both cases much larger than in 568/7 BC. Using the words of Stephenson and Willis, 588/7 BC can be confidently excluded.
6 These dates are in accordance with the shift of dates expressed in the Watchtower article of November 1, 2011, p. 28, Reference 17. This shift was also suggested by a Rolf Furuli, and is the subject of this review by Professor Hunger.
22
MARJORIE ALLEY’S LUNAR THREE TIME INTERVAL RESULTS FROM ASTRONOMY COMPUTER PROGRAMS7
[The calculations by Stephenson and Willis8, and also by Hermann Hunger9 show that the Lunar Three measurements on VAT 4956 could have only been taken during 568/567 BCE. Using readily available astronomy software, it is possible to conduct the same computations. When Marjorie Alley used several of these programs, she found that each program confirmed that the readings on VAT 4956 are from the year 568/567 BCE and not from 588/587 BCE.]
The following Tables compare the time intervals recorded on VAT 4956 against
time intervals calculated with the Computer program Sky View Café
time intervals calculated with the Computer program JPL Horizons.
Settings for Jet Propulsion Laboratories (JPL) Horizons astronomy program The results from the astronomy programs for all three years are entirely consistent with one another.
This is the address for the JPL HORIZONS site, with the settings used:
http://ssd.jpl.nasa.gov/horizons.cgi#results
Ephemeris Type: OBSERVER Target Body: Sun [Sol] [10]
Observer Location : user defined ( 44°24'00.0''E, 32°33'00.0''N ) Time Span : Start=588 BC-04-15 UT+3, Stop=587 BC-05-01, Step=1m
Table Settings : QUANTITIES=1; RTS flag=TVH Display/Output : default (formatted HTML)
Ephemeris Type: OBSERVER Target Body: Moon [Luna] [301]
Observer Location: user defined ( 44°24'00.0''E, 32°33'00.0''N ) Time Span: Start=568 BC-01-01 UT+3, Stop=567 BC-07-30, Step=1m
Table Settings: QUANTITIES=1; RTS flag=TVH Display/Output: default (formatted HTML)
Note: RTS is rise, transit, set.
RTS MARKERS (TVH). Rise and set are with respect to the reference ellipsoid true visual horizon defined by the elevation cut-off angle. Horizon dip and yellow-light refraction (Earth only) are considered. Accuracy is < or = to twice the requested search step-size..
Since I set the step-size to 1 minute, the accuracy is less than or equal to 2 minutes
7 Courtesy Marjorie Alley. Reproduced by permission. 8 F. R. Stephenson and D.M. Willis, “The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis” in Under one Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, ed. John M. Steele, Annette Imhausen, 2002, Ugarit-Verlag, Vienna, page 424. 9 Their findings are provided in this Companion Reference.
Marjorie Alley’s Lunar Three time interval results from astronomy computer programs
23
Table: Year 568/567 BC, beginning April 22/23
Location of Lunar three
measurement on VAT 4956 (“Obverse”
means front of the tablet)
Babylonian date
(Day begins at sunset)
Lunar three
interval
Measurement recorded on
VAT 4956 (1º is 4
minutes in time)
Julian date for 568/567
BCE
JPL Horizons results
Sky View Café
results
Obverse, line 4
Month I, day 14
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
4 º (16 min.)
May 5/6 568/567 BCE 3.75 º 3.75 º
Obverse, line 11
Month II, day 26
Moonrise to sunrise MR - SR
23 º (92 min.)
June 16/17 568/567 BCE 23.25 º 23 º
Obverse, line 12
Month III, day 1
Sunset to moonset SS-MS
20 º (80 min.)
June 20/21 568/567 BCE 22.75 º 22.75 º
Obverse, line 17
Month III, day 15
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
7.5 º (30 min.)
July 4/5 568/567 BCE 8.25 º 8.25 º
Reverse, line 5'
Month XI, day 1
Sunset to moonset SS - MS
14.5 º (58 min.)
Feb 12/13 568/567 BCE 17.25 º 17.25 º
Reverse, line 12'
Month XII, day 1
Sunset to moonset SS - MS
25 º (100 min.)
Mar 14/15 568/567 BCE 26 º 26 º
Reverse, line 16'
Month XII, day 12
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
1.5 º (6 min.)
Mar 25/26 568/567 BCE 0.5 º 0.5 º
VAT 4956 Lunar Three measurements compared with calculated values for 568/567 BCE commencing on April 22/23
Marjorie Alley’s Lunar Three time interval results from astronomy computer programs
24
Table: Year 588/587 BC, beginning April 3/4 Dates are according to the accepted table by Parker and Dubberstein for 588/587 BC, with the year commencing on April 3/4.
Location of Lunar three measurement on VAT 4956 (“Obverse” means front of the tablet)
Babylonian date
(Day begins at sunset)
Lunar three
interval
Measurement recorded on
VAT 4956 (1º is 4
minutes in time)
Julian date for 588/587
BCE Using the accepted
calendar for 588/587 BCE with New Year
(I, 1) on Apr ¾
JPL Horizons results
Sky View Café
results
Obverse, line 4
Month I, day 14
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
4 º (16 min.)
Apr. 16/17 588 BCE
IMPOSSIBLE Moon set 11
min. BEFORE sunrise
Impossible
Obverse, line 11
Month II, day 26
Moonrise to
sunrise MR - SR
23 º (92 min.)
May 28/29 588 BCE 17.5 º 17.5 º
Obverse, line 12
Month III, day 1
Sunset to moonset SS-MS
20 º (80 min.)
June 1/2 588 BCE 13.5 º 13.5 º
Obverse, line 17
Month III, day 15
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
7.5 º (30 min.)
June 15/16 588 BCE 5.5 º 5.75 º
Reverse, line 5'
Month XI, day 1
Sunset to moonset SS - MS
14.5 º (58 min.)
Jan 24/25 587 BCE 16 º 16.25 º
Reverse, line 12'
Month XII, day 1
Sunset to moonset SS - MS
25 º (100 min.)
Feb 23/24 587 BCE 27.25 º 27.25 º
Reverse, line 16'
Month XII, day 12
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
1.5 º (6 min.)
Mar 6/7 587 BCE
IMPOSSIBLE Moon set 29
min. BEFORE sunrise
Impossible
VAT 4956 Lunar Three measurements compared with calculated values for 588/587 BCE commencing on April 3/4 (Parker & Dubberstein dates)
Marjorie Alley’s Lunar Three time interval results from astronomy computer programs
25
Table: Year 588/7 BC, beginning May 2/3 According to Furuli’s requirements, and followed by The Watchtower of November 1, 2011, in which 588 BCE is assumed to have commenced May 2/3.
Location of Lunar three
measurement on VAT 4956 (“Obverse”
means front of the tablet)
Babylonian date
(Day begins at sunset)
Lunar three
interval
Measurement recorded on
VAT 4956 (1º is 4
minutes in time)
Julian date for 588/587 BCE Using Furuli’s
revised calendar for
588/587 BCE with New Year
(I,1) on May 2/3
JPL Horizons results
Sky View Café results
Obverse, line 4
Month I, day 14
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
4 º (16 min.)
May 15/16 588 BCE
IMPOSSIBLE. Moon set 34
min. BEFORE sunrise
IMPOSSIBLE
Obverse, line 11
Month II, day 26
Moonrise to
sunrise MR - SR
23 º (92 min.)
June 26/27 588 BCE 28 º 27.75 º
Obverse, line 12
Month III, day 1
Sunset to
moonset SS-MS
20 º (80 min.)
June 30/Jul 1 588 BCE 5.5 º 5.5 º
Obverse, line 17
Month III, day 15
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
7.5 º (30 min.)
July 14/15 588 BCE
IMPOSSIBLE. Moon set 6
min. BEFORE sunrise
IMPOSSIBLE
Reverse, line 5'
Month XI, day 1
Sunset to
moonset SS - MS
14.5 º (58 min.)
Feb 22/23 587 BCE 9.75 º 9.75 º
Reverse, line 12'
Month XII, day 1
Sunset to
moonset SS - MS
25 º (100 min.)
Mar 24/25 587 BCE 21 º 21.5 º
Reverse, line 16'
Month XII, day 12
Sunrise to
moonset SR - MS
1.5 º (6 min.)
Apr 4/5 587 BCE
IMPOSSIBLE. Moon set 42
min. BEFORE sunrise
IMPOSSIBLE
VAT 4956 Lunar Three measurements compared with calculated values for 588/587 BCE commencing on May 2/3,
as postulated by Furuli and by The Watchtower, November 1, 2011
VAT 4956 records a time-interval of 16 minutes between sunrise and moonset (SR - MS) on Month I, day 14 of Nebuchadnezzar' 37th year.
We have seen that a modern astronomy program, Sky View Cafe (SVC), shows the interval SR - MS was 15 minutes on that date in 568 BCE, which is the year accepted by all scholars.
The WT proposes the alternate year 588 BCE, but that date is IMPOSSIBLE because on Month I, day 14 of 588 BCE (where New Year was on May 2/3), we cannot measure the time that elapsed between sunrise and moonset because the full moon was NOT VISIBLE IN THE SKY AT SUNRISE! It had already set.
The WT tries to confuse matters in their discussion of the Lunar Threes in footnote 18a on page 28 of "When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed? Part Two," WT 11/1/2011 by saying the measurements taken by the "ancient observers" using "some sort of clock" were "not reliable."
Marjorie Alley’s Lunar Three time interval results from astronomy computer programs
26
It does not matter what kind of clock you have if you cannot measure SR - MS because the moon is NOT EVEN IN THE SKY. It does not matter if you have a Timex, or a Rolex, or an atomic clock, or an ancient water clock, or if you just count ONE-Mississippi, TWO-Mississippi --- you cannot measure moonset for a moon that is not there!
Here is the picture:
Sunrise at 5:04 am on Month I, day 14
May 16, 588 BCE, with a New Year of 588 BCE at on May 2/3 Note that there is no full moon visible in the western sky.
We cannot measure the interval between sunrise and moonset because the MOON IS NOT THERE! It set at 4:31 am, 33 minutes before sunrise.
This is an IMPOSSIBLE date.10
The following shows the side by side comparison of Lunar Three interval SR -MS for Month I, day 14, year 568 BCE and year 588 BCE. (Where New Year, Nisanu 1 = May 2/3, 588 BCE.)
10 Post by Marjorie Alley at http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/216056/1/VAT-4956-Comparison-Of-The-Lunar-Three-Time-Intervals-For-Years-568-7-BCE-and-588-7-BCE
27
ANN O’MALY’S LUNAR THREE TIME INTERVAL RESULTS FROM “SKY VIEW CAFÉ” AND “CARTES DU CIEL” ASTRONOMY PROGRAMS11
[The calculations by Stephenson and Willis12, and also by Hermann Hunger13 show that the Lunar Three measurements on VAT 4956 could have only been taken during 568/567 BCE. Using readily available astronomy software, it is possible to conduct the same computations. When Ann O’Maly used several of these programs, she found that each program confirmed that the readings on VAT 4956 are from the year 568/567 BCE and not from 588/587 BCE.]
Researcher Ann O’Maly applied the settings of Babylon to obtain Lunar Three data at VAT 4956 from the following online astronomy programs:
Sky View Café (SVC)
Cartes du Ciel (CdC).
Observer’s location: Babylon, 32° 33' N / 44° 24' E.
SR = sunrise; SS = sunset; MR = moonrise; MS = moonset.
Table: Year 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text SVC Difference CdC Difference
I.14 May 6 a.m., 568 SR-MS 4° 3.75° 0.25° 3.5° 0.5°
II.26 June 17 a.m., 568 MR-SR 23° 23° 0° 29.25° 6.25°
III.1 June 20 p.m., 568 SS-MS 20° 22.75° 2.75° 19° 1°
III.15 July 5
a.m., 568 SR-MS 7.5° 8.25° 0.75° 10.75° 3.25°
XI.1 Feb 12 p.m., 567 SS-MS 14.5° 17.25° 2.75° 19.25° 4.75°
XII.1 Mar 14 p.m., 567 SS-MS 25° 26° 1° 27.75° 2.75°
XII.12 Mar 26 a.m., 567 SR-MS 1.5° 0.5° 1° 0.25° 1.25°
Comments: SVC’s range of difference between its results and those of the text is 0° to 2.75°. Average difference 1.2°.
CdC’s range of difference between its results and those of the text is 0.5° to 6.25°. Average difference 2.8°.
Conclusion: Even though the CdC program seems to be a little more erratic with the accuracy of its time interval results compared to SVC, every 568/7 B.C.E. Lunar Three time interval is accounted for and mostly agrees with the text’s figures. This set of lunar data confirms the year as correct. 11 Courtesy Ann O’Maly. Reproduced by permission. 12 F. R. Stephenson and D.M. Willis, “The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis” in Under one Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, ed. John M. Steele, Annette Imhausen, 2002, Ugarit-Verlag, Vienna, page 424. 13 Their findings are provided in this Companion Reference.
Ann O’Maly’s Lunar Three results from “Sky View Café” and “Cartes du Ciel” astronomy programs
28
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli’s calendar)
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text SVC Difference CdC Difference
I.14 May 16 a.m., 588 SR-MS 4° ! ! ! !
II.26 June 27 a.m., 588 MR-SR 23° 27.75° 4.75° 35° 12°
III.1 June 301 p.m., 588 SS-MS 20° 5.5° 14.5° 4.75° 15.25°
III.15 July 15 a.m., 588 SR-MS 7.5° ! ! ! !
XI.1 Feb 22 p.m., 587 SS-MS 14.5° 9.75° 4.75° 12.25° 2.25°
XII.1 Mar 24 p.m., 587 SS-MS 25° 21.5° 3.5° 23.25° 1.75°
XII.12 Apr 52 a.m., 587 SR-MS 1.5° ! ! ! !
Notes: ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to these programs’ simulations. 1 This measurement could not have been taken on this date as it was before first lunar crescent visibility. Still, the computed values are included. 2 Furuli has April 3/4, but this would be a counting error on his part if Addaru 1 = March 24. There is some confusion with his dates for 587 B.C.E.
Comments: SVC’s range of difference between its results and those of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 3.5° to 14.5°. Average difference 6.9°.
CdC’s range of difference between its results and those of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75° to 15.25°. Average difference 7.8°.
Conclusion: These Lunar Three time intervals, omitted from Furuli’s (and thus the Watchtower’s) study of the tablet’s lunar data, clearly confirm that the May-based year 588/7 B.C.E. can be confidently excluded as a match for VAT 4956.
Ann O’Maly’s Lunar Three results from “Sky View Café” and “Cartes du Ciel” astronomy programs
29
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein’s tables)
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text SVC Difference CdC Difference
I.14 Apr 17 a.m., 588 SR-MS 4° ! ! ! !
II.26 May 29 a.m., 588 MR-SR 23° 17.5° 5.5° 24° 1°
III.1 June 1 p.m., 588 SS-MS 20° 13.5° 6.5° 11.5° 8.5°
III.15 June 16 a.m., 588 SR-MS 7.5° 5.75° 1.75° 6.75° 0.75°
XI.1 Jan 24 p.m., 587 SS-MS 14.5° 16.25° 1.75° 20° 5.5°
XII.1 Feb 23 p.m., 587 SS-MS 25° 27.25° 2.25° 29.5° 4.5°
XII.12 Mar 7 a.m., 587 SR-MS 1.5° ! ! ! !
Notes: ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to these programs’ simulations.
Comments SVC’s range of difference between its results and those of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 1.75° to 6.5°. Average difference 3.5°. CdC’s range of difference between its results and those of the text, when a time interval could be taken, is 0.75° to 8.5°. Average difference 4°.
Conclusion These 588/7 B.C.E. Lunar Three results fare better than those in the previous table. However, it’s clear that 568/7 B.C.E. remains the far better match out of the three scenarios.
30
ANN O’MALY’S LUNAR THREE TIME INTERVAL RESULTS FROM “ALCYONE EPHEMERIS 2.8” (AE) ASTRONOMY PROGRAM14
[The calculations by Stephenson and Willis15, and also by Hermann Hunger16 show that the Lunar Three measurements on VAT 4956 could have only been taken during 568/567 BCE. Using readily available astronomy software, it is possible to conduct the same computations. When Ann O’Maly used several of these programs, she found that each program confirmed that the readings on VAT 4956 are from the year 568/567 BCE and not from 588/587 BCE.]
Table: 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text AE Difference
I.14 May 6 a.m., 568 SR-MS 4° 2.75° 1.25°
II.26 June 17 a.m., 568 MR-SR 23° 23.25° 0.25°
III.1 June 20 p.m., 568 SS-MS 20° 22.75° 2.75°
III.15 July 5 a.m., 568 SR-MS 7.5° 7° 0.5°
XI.1 Feb 12 p.m., 567 SS-MS 14.5° 17° 2.5°
XII.1 Mar 14 p.m., 567 SS-MS 25° 25.75° 0.75°
XII.12 Mar 26 a.m., 567 SR-MS 1.5° -0.5° ! 2°
Notes ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to this program's simulation. The moon set before the sun rose instead of the other way around. This time, a calculation has been included for all exclamation marked boxes.
Method 1.5° (above horizon) to 0° (horizon) = 1.5° of time
0° (horizon) to -0.5° (below horizon) = 0.5° of time
Therefore, the difference between the tablet's figure and AE's computation is, here,
1.5 + 0.5 = 2°
Comments AE's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 0.25° to 2.75°.
Average difference 1.4°.
14 Courtesy Ann O’Maly. Reproduced by permission. 15 F. R. Stephenson and D.M. Willis, “The Earliest Datable Observation of the Aurora Borealis” in Under one Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, ed. John M. Steele, Annette Imhausen, 2002, Ugarit-Verlag, Vienna, page 424. 16 Their findings are provided in this Companion Reference.
Ann O’Maly’s Lunar Three results from “Alcyone Ephemeris 2.8” astronomy program
31
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar)
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text AE Difference
I.14 May 16 a.m., 588 SR-MS 4° -9.5° ! 13.5°
II.26 June 27 a.m., 588 MR-SR 23° 28° 5°
III.1 June 301 p.m., 588 SS-MS 20° 5.5° 14.5°
III.15 July 15 a.m., 588 SR-MS 7.5° -2.5° ! 10°
XI.1 Feb 22 p.m., 587 SS-MS 14.5° 9.5° 5°
XII.1 Mar 24 p.m., 587 SS-MS 25° 21.25° 3.75°
XII.12 Apr 52 a.m., 587 SR-MS 1.5° -11.5° ! 13°
Notes ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to this program's simulations. See note on this above. 1 This measurement could not have been taken on this date as it was before first lunar crescent visibility. Still, the computed values are included. 2 Furuli has April 3/4, but this would be a counting error on his part if Addaru 1 = March 24. There is some confusion with his dates for 587 B.C.E.
Comments AE's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 3.75° to 14.5°.
Average difference 9.25°.
Ann O’Maly’s Lunar Three results from “Alcyone Ephemeris 2.8” astronomy program
32
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 3/4 (Parker and Dubberstein's tables)
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text AE Difference
I.14 Apr 17 a.m., 588 SR-MS 4° -3.75° ! 7.75°
II.26 May 29 a.m., 588 MR-SR 23° 15° 8°
III.1 June 1 p.m., 588 SS-MS 20° 13.75° 6.25°
III.15 June 16 a.m., 588 SR-MS 7.5° 4.5° 3°
XI.1 Jan 24 p.m., 587 SS-MS 14.5° 16.25° 1.75°
XII.1 Feb 23 p.m., 587 SS-MS 25° 27.25° 2.25°
XII.12 Mar 7 a.m., 587 SR-MS 1.5° -8.25° ! 9.75°
Notes ! No measurement of the type specified on the tablet could be taken that day according to this program's simulations. See note on this above.
Comments AE's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 1.75° to 9.75°.
Average difference 5.5°.
33
LUNAR THREES COMPARISON USING “SKY MAP PRO 11.04”17 Table: 568/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = April 22/23
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text Sky Map Pro Difference
I.14 May 6 a.m., 568 SR-MS 4° 3.82° 0.18°
II.26 June 17 a.m., 568 MR-SR 23° 23° 0°
III.1 June 20 p.m., 568 SS-MS 20° 22.90° 2.9°
III.15 July 5 a.m., 568 SR-MS 7.5° 8.31° 0.81°
XI.1 Feb 12 p.m., 567 SS-MS 14.5° 17.26° 2.76°
XII.1 Mar 14 p.m., 567 SS-MS 25° 25.98° 0.98°
XII.12 Mar 26 a.m., 567 SR-MS 1.5° 0.63° 0.87°
Comments Sky Map Pro's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 0° to 2.9°.
Average difference 1.2°.
Table: 588/7 B.C.E., Nisanu 1 = May 2/3 (Furuli's calendar)
Month/Day Julian Date Interval Text Sky Map Pro Difference
I.14 May 16 a.m., 588 SR-MS 4° -8.22° ! 12.22°
II.26 June 27 a.m., 588 MR-SR 23° 27.74° 4.74°
III.1 June
301 p.m., 588
SS-MS 20° 5.65° 14.35°
III.15 July 15 a.m., 588 SR-MS 7.5° -1.18° ! 8.68°
XI.1 Feb 22 p.m., 587 SS-MS 14.5° 9.81° 4.69°
XII.1 Mar 24 p.m., 587 SS-MS 25° 21.43° 3.57°
XII.12 Apr 52a.m., 587 SR-MS 1.5° -10.44° ! 11.94°
Comments Sky Map Pro's range of difference between its results and those of the text is 3.57° and 14.35°.
Average difference 8.6° 17 Name of the contributor is unknown and unavailable. Provided courtesy Ann O’Maly
34
“CONJUNCTIONS OF THE MOON WITH NORMAL STARS” ON VAT 4956 (F. RICHARD STEPHENSON AND DAVID M. WILLIS)18
[The following is from the Reference article cited at Endnote 18a on page 28 of the November 1, 2011 article. The author of the “Watchtower” article was fully aware of the contents of the Study by Stephenson and Willis and the conclusions, yet decided to keep them from the reader.]
From an early period, the Babylonians recognised 31 "normal stars" spread along the zodiac. When the moon or a planet was in conjunction with one of these stars, the separation in "cubits" was estimated – usually to the nearest ½ cubit or about 1°. ...
In all, seven observations are preserved on our text for which the star is identified. ...
(i) "Month III ... night of the 8th, first part of the night, the moon stood 2½ cubits below librae". ... We compute that at local time of 20h, ... the moon would be 4.3° to the south of Lib. The tabular date is thus confirmed. ...
(ii) "Month III ... night of the 10th, first part of the night, the moon was balanced 3½ cubits above Scorpii".
This conjunction occurred only two days after the previous one involving Lib. At 20 h on Jun 29, the computed longitude and latitude of the moon were 218. 1° and +3.4°, The star Sco (= Antares) would be in longitude 214.1° and latitude -4.2°. Hence the moon would be 7.6° to the north and 4.0° to the east of Sco (see Figure 2). Once again the date is confirmed. ...
Our investigations of the seven recorded conjunctions of the Moon with stars are summarised in Table 2. ...
For the first and third observations we have amended the recorded day of the month by 1, on the basis of calculation; presumably scribal errors have occurred here. In the case of the sixth observation, the date is missing and we have inserted the calculated day of the month. These emendations are indicated by parentheses.
Month Day Julian Date Star Cubits Degrees Ratio
I [8] 568 Apr 29 Vir 1 1.9 1.9
II 1 568 May 22 Gem 4 7.3 1.8
III [4] 568 Jun 24 Vir 1 3.1 3.1
III 8 568 Jun 27 Lib 2.5 4.3 1.7
III 10 568 Jun 29 Sco 3.5 8.6 2.5
XI [11] 567 Feb 22 Leo 1 2.5 2.5
XII 2 567 Mar 15 Tau 4 7.6 1.9
Table 2. Analysis of conjunctions of the moon with Normal Stars: comparison between measured and computed values
... All seven observations are, in fact, well supported by calculation and are in good accord with a date for the tablet of 568-567 B.C. ...
18 From pages 421 – 428 of Under One Sky: Astronomy and Mathematics in the Ancient Near East, F. Richard Stephenson and David M. Willis, editors: John M. Steele, Annette Imhausen, Ugarit-Verlag, Münster, 2002. (The Watchtower November 1, 2011, page 28: Reference 18a) (Emphases supplied)
“Conjunctions of the Moon with Normal Stars” on VAT 4956 Stephenson and Willis (Watchtower Reference 18a)
35
Conclusion The observations analysed here are sufficiently diverse and accurate to enable the accepted date of the tablet – i.e., 568-567 BC – to be confidently affirmed. It should be emphasised that although the circumstances of conjunctions of the moon with stars tend to repeat at 19-year intervals (the Metonic cycle), this is not the case for lunar threes.
36
INVESTIGATION BY ANN O’MALY OF THE 13 SETS OF LUNAR POSITIONS ON VAT 495619
Do all 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956 fit the year 588/587 BCE?
According to the Watchtower article titled, ‘When Was Ancient Jerusalem Destroyed?-What the Clay Documents Really Show?’ (November 1, 2011 pp. 22-28), the following claim is made:
Because of the superior reliability of the lunar positions, researchers have carefully analyzed these 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956. They analyzed the data with the aid of a computer program capable of showing the location of celestial bodies on a certain date in the past. What did their analysis reveal? While not all of these sets of lunar positions match the year 568/567 B.C.E., all 13 sets match calculated positions for 20 years earlier, for the year 588/587 B.C.E. - p. 25, 27 (emphasis added)
The only researcher, that I am aware of, who has previously made this claim is Dr. Rolf Furuli. In the book Assyrian, Babylonian, Egyptian, and Persian Chronology- Vol. II, (2nd edition, 2008), he says:
In the year 588/87, the positions of the stars and the constellations before, after, above, and below the moon fit perfectly, and the same is true with the distances between these and the moon, to the very degree. This strongly suggests that the lunar data on VAT 4956 were copied from a tablet having genuine observations from 588/87. - p. 332-3
Because of the excellent fit of all 13 lunar positions in 588/87, there are good reasons to believe that the lunar positions represent observations from that year ... . - p. 333
Putting the claim to the test: The introduction to Table C.5 on p. 332 of Furuli’s book outlines the criteria for determining an excellent, inaccurate or bad fit with the tablet’s data:
Below in Table C.5 is a comparison of good and bad fits of the lunar positions for the three different years that have been analyzed. An ‘Excellent’ fit can include a deviation of 1°, an ‘Inaccurate’ fit can include a deviation of 2°, and a ‘Bad’ fit has a deviation of more than 2°.
The following “Table C.5: The fit of the 13 sets of lunar positions related to years” is adapted to include my comments on those results.20
The astronomy program used for comparison is the online version of Sky View Café.
19 Post by Ann O’Maly at: http://www.jehovahs-witness.net/watchtower/bible/216051/1/Do-All-13-Sets-Of-Lunar-Positions-On-VAT-4956-Fit-The-Year-588-587-B-C-E. Used by permission. 20 The column for 586/5 B.C.E. has been left out of the reproduced Table C.5 as it is irrelevant.
Investigation by Ann O’Maly of the 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956
37
Claim by Furuli for
588/587
Comments by Ann O’Maly
Claim by Furuli for
568/567
Comments by Ann O’Maly
Nisanu 1 Excellent
Sunset May 2: The moon was positioned as was stated on the tablet. However, contrary to the tablet’s statement about the moon being visible, this moon would not have been (and thus the month is starting a day too early). As Furuli agrees that the lunar data on the tablet seem to be “genuine observations” (p. 333), it is puzzling that this moon could not be ‘genuinely observed’ and yet be seen as fitting the tablet’s description ‘excellently.’
Excellent
Sunset April 22: The moon was visible and its position consistent with the tablet’s statement.
Nisanu 9 Excellent May 10: The moon couldn’t be described as ‘in front of’ the star, but the distance from it matches that on the text.
Bad April 30: The moon’s position is, for the text’s date, indeed bad.
Ayyaru 1 Excellent
Sunset June 1: A good positional fit, however the rest of the observation details for the moon that day are ignored. Bad
Sunset May 22: This should have been labeled an EXCELLENT fit. The moon’s stated characteristics and position match very well (only 1° deviation) with the astro-program’s results.
Simanu 1 Excellent
Sunset June 30: Again, contrary to the text, this moon was not visible. Also, the modern computed time interval (sunset to moonset) does not fit the text’s figure by a long shot. However, the moon’s position was consistent with the tablet’s statement.
Excellent
Sunset June 20: All the boxes are ticked - visibility, position, time interval and other characteristics. Yes, excellent.
Simanu 5 Excellent
July 4: This should have been labeled BAD under F’s criteria in the introduction. The moon is approx. 5½-6° behind the star rather than F’s 2°36’ above it or the 2° <above/below> it, as indicated in the text (a deviation of 3½° or more).
Bad
June 24: Assuming the star has been correctly identified, the moon’s position for the text’s date is bad.
Simanu 8 Excellent
July 7: Should be marked BAD. The moon could not be described as 5° ‘below’ the star (or, as F. claims, 4°24’ below it), but it was about 12° in front of it.
Excellent
June 27: The moon was about 4° below the star (only 1° deviation) - excellent fit with the tablet.
Simanu 10 Excellent
July 9: Contrary to F’s calculated distance of 7° 16’, the moon was, in fact, about 10½° above the star and thus deviates 3½° from the 7° indicated on the tablet. Therefore, this position should also be entered as BAD.
Excellent
June 29: The moon was about 5½° above the star. The tablet indicates a distance of 7° which is a 1½° deviation from my chosen program’s calculation. So, using F’s criteria, this could mean an INACCURATE tag.
Sabatu 1 Excellent
Sunset February 22 [see note 1 below]: The position of the moon is consistent with the tablet’s statement, however, contrary to what the tablet said, it is unlikely that it was visible. In addition, the stated time interval poorly fits the computed time.
Excellent
Sunset February 12: The moon’s position and its visibility are consistent with the tablet’s testimony. The time interval is a better match than the one for 587 B.C.E.
Investigation by Ann O’Maly of the 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956
38
Claim by Furuli for
588/587
Comments by Ann O’Maly
Claim by Furuli for
568/567
Comments by Ann O’Maly
Sabatu 6 Excellent February 27: This should be labeled BAD. [See note 2 below.] Excellent
February 17: This date yields a compatible result with the specified celestial objects falling within the halo’s parameter.
Sabatu 11? Excellent
No day number can be seen on the tablet, so ‘Sabatu 11’ is speculation. Curiously, F’s comments and the table’s 587 section (p. 328-329) are based on calculations for Sabatu 12, and he says that the moon’s position is “exactly as the tablet says.” Logically, then, there cannot be an ‘Excellent’ fit for the moon’s position on Sabatu 11 as well! This isn’t the only problem, but for the sake of simplicity, the above criticism will suffice. This one should be marked INVALID.
Excellent
February 22: There is a good fit with this corresponding date to Sabatu 11, but seeing as no date is given on the tablet at all, and because of the confusion of dates on the 587 side, it is better to omit the result from this table.
Addaru 1 Excellent
Sunset March 24: The moon’s position is a good match with the tablet. Other details could conceivably match too - with the exception of the time interval which would be classed as a poor fit.
Excellent
Sunset March 14: Ticks all the boxes - the moon was visible, its position consistent with the tablet’s statement, the time interval is a good match, good probability of other stated details fitting. Yes, excellent.
Addaru 2 Excellent
March 25: The moon was about 9° behind and over 5½° below the Pleiades. In fact, the moon was right in the middle of Taurus’ head. The tablet indicates the moon “was balanced” 8° below the Pleiades. This is a poor fit - even according to F’s criteria - and should be marked BAD.
Bad
March 15: The moon was 7° straight below the Pleiades (1° deviation) and is, therefore, an EXCELLENT match with the tablet! [The reason why F. classed it as ‘Bad’ is explained below in note 3.]
Addaru 7 Excellent March 30: The moon’s position is consistent with the tablet’s details. Excellent
March 20: The moon’s position is likewise consistent with the tablet’s details.
Note 1: The discussion of the lunar data on the tablet’s Reverse is a little confusing in Furuli’s 2nd edition. In his table, he had dated Sabatu 1 to February 22, 587 BCE in his 1st edition (p. 318), but to February 21/22 in his 2nd edition (p. 327).
Yet the Julian day number he provides corresponds to February 22 at 6 p.m. local time (similar inconsistencies between the table’s Julian date and the Julian day number occur for Sabatu 6 and Addaru 1).
Regarding the moon’s position, he says,
The position is calculated at the end of Sabatu 1, because the moon could not be seen at the beginning of the day. (p. 326)
If sunset February 21 was supposed to begin Sabatu 1, it would be correct to say the new moon could not be seen, since this date was just before conjunction. It’s unclear what is meant by ‘the end of Sabatu 1’ - the Julian day number gives a time after sunset which starts a new day (i.e. day 2).
If sunset February 22 was supposed to begin Sabatu 1, visibility would also be unlikely because of its azimuthal proximity to the sun, low altitude and having less than 1% illuminated fraction. According
Investigation by Ann O’Maly of the 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956
39
to both the Parker & Dubberstein and Anderlič/Firneis tables21, and the criteria of both Schoch and Neugebauer22, the likelihood of visibility would have been the next evening, February 23.
As February 22 seems to be the more reasonable date out of the two Furuli opts for, I’ll run with that and the dates that follow on from it.
Note 2: Reverse, line 6’: Night of the 6th, first part of the night, the moon was surrounded by a halo; Pleiades, the Bull of Heaven, and the Chariot [stood in it .... ]
Halos come in specific sizes due to uniformly shaped ice crystals in the atmosphere and the angle at which light passes through them. The most commonly seen halo is 22° in radius. Rarely, there are larger 46° ones. (See http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/ice/halo/22.rxml and http://ww2010.atmos.uiuc.edu/(Gh)/guides/mtr/opt/ice/halo/46.rxml for a quick overview on halos.)
On February 27, 587 BCE, during the first part of the night, the moon was more than 30° away from the Pleiades. Assuming the scribe wanted to say the constellations ‘stood in’ the halo (the line is broken, but it’s likely), the question is: which halo was seen that night? Can we know?
Yes we can. According to both R.C. Thompson (The Reports of the Magicians and Astrologers of Nineveh and Babylon, p. xxiv, xxv - http://www.etana.org/sites/default/files/coretexts/20312.pdf*) and Sachs/Hunger (quoted below), the ancients had two words for halo: the smaller 22° one was called tarbasu (TÙR or TUR3), and the larger one of 46° was called supuru (AMAŠ).
TÙR ‘halo’
Akk. tarbasu ‘pen, fold’. ... The larger type of halo called supuru is not so far attested in diaries. - Astronomical Diaries and Related Texts From Babylonia, Vol. I, p. 33.
(See also the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, Vol. 15, p. 398 and Vol. 18, p. 221-2 - http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/pubs/catalog/cad/ .)
Consequently, it is the word tarbasu, describing the common 22° halo, which is used in VAT 4956.
Therefore, Neugebauer & Weidner comment:
The halo with a 22° radius around the sun and moon is meant by tarbasu ... . Halo observations are mentioned quite often in our text. Obv. 3, 5; Rev. 3, 8 report on halos around the sun; Rev. 6, 7, 14, 15 on halos around the moon. The latter are particularly important; indeed, as it is regularly stated which stars and constellations are seen in the halo, an important clue is given for identifying them by approximately fixing the limits. - Ein astronomischer Beobachtungstext aus dem 37. Jahre Nebukadnezars II (-567/6), 1915, p.41 - translated from the German.
Sabatu 6 appears to be the only occasion under Furuli’s scheme, and where lunar halos are mentioned, that the celestial objects on the tablet would fall outside the 22° parameter.
--- * Report no. 117 is also known as SAA 8, 494 and can be read here:
http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu/cgi-bin/oracc?prod=srch&project=saa&seq=volume,ch_no,designation&perpage=25&k0=sGRtCDR&zoom=4&zoomforce=1&page=2&item=21&trans=en
21 http://www.univie.ac.at/EPH/Geschichte/First_Lunar_Crescents/Babylon-0599-0550.htm 22 http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu//full/1999JHA....30...51F/0000065.000.html
Investigation by Ann O’Maly of the 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956
40
Note 3: This is among the most embarrassing gaffes made in Furuli’s 2nd edition. Bizarrely, despite the tablet clearly saying ‘night of the 2nd’ and considering that the moon would only be visible for 2½ hours or so after sunset, the given 587 B.C.E. Julian day number translates into March 25 at 9 a.m. local time (i.e. still Addaru 1), and the given 567 B.C.E. Julian day number corresponds to March 16 at 9 a.m. local time - broad daylight! It is on this ludicrous foundation that these rapidly-changing lunar positions are calculated and Furuli concludes, this time, that the Addaru 2, 587 B.C.E. position is excellent, while the Addaru 2, 567 B.C.E. position is bad!
SUMMARY OF THE 13 SETS OF LUNAR DATA RESULTS:
588/87 568/67
Nisanu 1 Partially good Excellent
Nisanu 9 Excellent Bad
Ayyaru 1 Partially good Excellent
Simanu 1 Partially good Excellent
Simanu 5 Bad Bad
Simanu 8 Bad Excellent
Simanu 10 Bad Inaccurate?
Sabatu 1 Partially good Excellent
Sabatu 6 Bad Excellent
Sabatu 11? Inconclusive Inconclusive
Addaru 1 Mostly good Excellent
Addaru 2 Bad Excellent
Addaru 7 Excellent Excellent
CONSEQUENTLY:
588/87 568/67
Excellent 2 9
Mostly good 1 -
Partially good 4 -
Inaccurate? - 1
Bad 5 2
Inconclusive 1 1
Investigation by Ann O’Maly of the 13 sets of lunar positions on VAT 4956
41
Conclusion It should have become clear by now that, even when the premises and criteria of the “researchers” are used in examining VAT 4956 (e.g. a late May start to the Babylonian new year, sometimes having a new month begin before first lunar crescent visibility, omitting key data and including speculative data in the analysis), the claim “all 13 sets [of lunar positions] match calculated positions ... for the year 588/587 B.C.E.” still remains totally false!
42
THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE PLANETARY OBSERVATIONS From: 1914, Touchstone of the Watchtower, pages 105-107, by Max Hatton, 1965.23
Commencing on page 72, Neugebauer and Weidner provide details of the position of the planets on various dates as recorded on the Tablet. The location of Saturn, Jupiter, Venus, Mars and Mercury are provided.
“Babylon the Great Has Fallen!” [BF] page 331 informs us,
Much information has been systematically collected by the Babylonians and from it we have here the beginning of astronomy. The groups of stars which now bear the name ‘Twelve Signs of the Zodiac’ were mapped out for the first time, and the planets Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn were known.
We can see then that the Tablet provides observed positions of all the known planets. The observations were not haphazardly recorded either.
Chaldean observations may be illustrated by an ephemeris prepared in 568. ... Already the course of the planets is definitely fixed in degrees and minutes with reference to the constellations and stars. (A T Olmstead, page 200 History of the Persian Empire, and page 120 The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures Vol. LV, April 1938.
The groups of stars mentioned by BF are the “constellations” referred to by Olmstead. And There Was Light by Rudolph Thiel confirms on page 15, “There are twelve constellations in the Zodiac.”
On the following page of each reference given, Olmstead observes
Not only were the cycles of all the planets but Mercury known with astonishing precision, but the astronomers were not satisfied with their results and were seeking to make them more precise.
The cycles of the planets (i.e., the period each planet takes on one revolution about the Sun) are disclosed on page 128 of the Encyclopaedia Britannica Atlas (1961) “Modern Space Map.”
Mercury 88 days Venus 224.7 days Earth 365.25 days Mars 1.88 years Jupiter 11.86 years Saturn 29.46 years Uranus 84.02 years Neptune 164.79 years Pluto 248.43 years
Seeing that the position and date of the position of each of the Planets known in those days is definitely recorded on the tablet, and Astronomers say that the Tablet relates to the year 568 BC. We have the 37th Year of Nebuchadnezzar definitely located by the several lines of evidence on the Tablet.
The Planets did stand in the relation to each other recorded on the Tablet in 568 BC. Remember that the Society is satisfied that Astronomers can calculate the date of tablets from the Astronomical data that they contain. (see my page 48 and Awake, April 22nd, 1963 page 17.)
Now picture what the situation would have to be for this Tablet to fit another year with which the observation details on the tablet coincided.
23 His complete study is available at: http://www.jwstudies.com/1914_Touchstone_Of_TheWatchtower_Hatton.pdf
The Information Provided By The Planetary Observations
43
To do this, it is necessary first of all to consider the peculiarities related to each planet. For convenience sake, we will start with the Earth and we will station ourselves at Babylon where the original observations were made. As the positions of the Planets are located with reference to the Constellations, the Earth would have to be back in its same relation to them as it was on the date of the record on the Tablet. This only happens at the end of each complete revolution around the Sun and therefore once a year, so if an alternative year is to be found for the planets to stand in the same relation to each other, it would have to be very nearly in exact multiples of 365.25 days away from the dates in 568 BC. This point may be better understood too when the positions of the planets are being considered.
A paragraph from the book A Key to the Heavens by Leo Mattersdorf might also help, page 83:
Hence, the constellations for ages have presented the same formations, and those we see on a spring evening, let us say, we shall see at the same time the next spring. The stars become old looked-for friends, and the rising of the springtime star groups presages the advent of another season of warmth, flowers, and blossoms. The evening stars of other times of the year are similarly identified with their respective seasons, and actually present for us an infallible celestial calendar.
Of all the planets known to the Babylonians, Saturn has the cycle taking the longest period of time, ie., 29.46 years. Therefore it would be back in its required position almost 29½ years before or after 568 BC.
Obviously though, the Earth would have completed 29½ cycles in this time and though Saturn would be in position, the Earth would be half-way on its journey around the Sun again. And what about the other planets? Let us take the planet with the next largest orbit, Jupiter (11.86 years). At the end of 29½ years it would be nowhere near its required position on the specified date, for it would have circled the Sun twice (23.72 years) and have been nearly half-way around the Sun again. There is no need to consider the other planets, for clearly a date approx. 29½ years away from 568 BC would be absolutely impossible.
On page 200 of History of the Persian Empire, Olmstead cites an Astronomical Textbook of the Babylonians dated to 577 BC. On it the scribe stated, “Saturn comes back in 59 years.” This is not absolutely correct for as we can see 29.46 x 2 = 58.92. Nevertheless, in approx. cycles of 59 years, Saturn was again observable in the same location. Let us then consider the position that would exist each 59 years.
The Earth, as the Babylonian Textbook testifies, would be in its required position, (because the cycle is of complete years.) Saturn of course is in a favourable position. Now, what about Jupiter? Is it going to fit in on its due-date? Unfortunately, No! It would have completed a total of 4 revolutions about the Sun in this time and would almost have completed its 5th, almost. Almost but not quite, for on its prescribed date it would be roughly 4½ months away from its required position.
When we consider that the Society’s Chronology is approx. 20 years at variance with the Absolute Chronology for the period it becomes apparent that it requires Nebuchadnezzar’s 37th year to be about 588 BC.
When we again refer to the cycles of the planets, we can see that it is absolutely impossible for the planets to have stood in the correct relationship to each other in that year.
To determine another year when all the planets did stand in the required relationship to each other at the prescribed intervals, we have to calculate the Lowest Common Multiple of all the cycle periods. For example, if Jupiter’s Cycle took 12 years instead of 11.86, and Saturn’s was 30 years instead of 29.46, it would take 60 years for the Planets to again stand in the same relation to each other as required by the Tablet. The Earth would again too be in its required location with reference to the Constellations. (Anyone with a basic knowledge of Mathematics knows that 60 is the Least Common Multiple of 12 and 30. There is not one number less than 60 that they will both divide into evenly.)
The Information Provided By The Planetary Observations
44
During this time, Saturn would have made 2 revolutions around the Sun and Jupiter 5. But the problem is not so simple, for the observations of Mercury, Venus and Mars are also recorded and these too would have to be back in their recorded positions on given dates. Besides this, we do not want the Lowest Common Multiple of 12 and 30, we want it of 29.46 years, 11.86, years, 1.88 years, 1 year, 224.7 days and 88 days.
If you calculate the Lowest Common Multiple of just 1 year, 11.86 years and 29.46 years you will arrive at the figure 1,746,978 years. It makes one’s head swim to even think what the Lowest Common Multiple of all the Cycle periods would be.
I am not suggesting that the observations of the planets by the Babylonians were absolutely accurate, but slight errors would not alter the situation. The eclipse and the planetary positions fix this year quite positively.
Is it any wonder that Otto Neugebauer wrote to me and said that the year was absolutely certain?
It is no wonder either that the Seventh-day Adventist Bible Commentary states, concerning this tablet,
Modern Astronomers who have checked this information by astronomical computation say that the combination of data for the sun, moon, and planets which all move in differing cycles, cannot be duplicated in any other year.
Incidentally, in a year 59 years away from 568 BC, Mars would have been at least 7 months or approx. one-third of its Cycle out of position on its due date. I just mention this in case someone was thinking that 59 years was near enough. It is nowhere near a sufficient period.
There is no reason to doubt the veracity of the statements of the experts who correspond the Tablet with the year 568 BC, and the conclusion that this year was Nebuchadnezzar's 37th is inescapable.
